some1

Piper H350 Holidays 😎

The stock autopilot toggle ('Z' key by default) will work too.

It's probably happening because the GNS530/430 reads the aircraft heading from your (misaligned) HSI 😉

The available cockpit options are: no gps, GNS430, GNS530, GNS530+GNS430, PMS 750, TDS 750Xi. Green or gray panel.

Works now, thanks!

Hi Dave, thanks for continuing updates. With the beta3, the altitude from the flightplan file loads correctly. But if I import directly using the new feature "Import Simbrief", then the cruise altitude does not match. Simbrief shows FL340, while the imported plan shows FL300 in P2ATC.

Pilot2ATC does not import altitude from the following flightplan. It seems that .000 in the <CruisingAlt> tag is treated by the program as invalid data. Full flightplan I used: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <SimBase.Document Type="AceXML" version="1,0"> <Descr>AceXML Document</Descr> <FlightPlan.FlightPlan> <Title>EETN to ESSA</Title> <FPType>IFR</FPType> <RouteType>HighAlt</RouteType> <CruisingAlt>28000.000</CruisingAlt> <DepartureID>EETN</DepartureID> <DepartureLLA>N59° 24' 48.00",E24° 49' 57.00",+000135.00</DepartureLLA> <DestinationID>ESSA</DestinationID> <DestinationLLA>N59° 39' 7.00",E17° 55' 7.00",+000138.00</DestinationLLA> <Descr>EETN to ESSA created by SimBrief</Descr> <DepartureName>Lennart Meri</DepartureName> <DestinationName>Arlanda</DestinationName> <AppVersion> <AppVersionMajor>11</AppVersionMajor> <AppVersionBuild>282174</AppVersionBuild> </AppVersion> <ATCWaypoint id="EETN"> <ATCWaypointType>Airport</ATCWaypointType> <WorldPosition>N59° 24' 48.00",E24° 49' 57.00",+000135.00</WorldPosition> <RunwayNumberFP>26</RunwayNumberFP> <ICAO> <ICAOIdent>EETN</ICAOIdent> </ICAO> </ATCWaypoint> <ATCWaypoint id="PETOT"> <ATCWaypointType>Intersection</ATCWaypointType> <WorldPosition>N59° 30' 40.00",E23° 8' 31.00",+022000.00</WorldPosition> <DepartureFP>PETO1T</DepartureFP> <RunwayNumberFP>26</RunwayNumberFP> <ICAO> <ICAORegion>EF</ICAORegion> <ICAOIdent>PETOT</ICAOIdent> </ICAO> </ATCWaypoint> <ATCWaypoint id="LUPET"> <ATCWaypointType>Intersection</ATCWaypointType> <WorldPosition>N59° 38' 25.00",E19° 52' 35.00",+028000.00</WorldPosition> <ICAO> <ICAORegion>ES</ICAORegion> <ICAOIdent>LUPET</ICAOIdent> </ICAO> </ATCWaypoint> <ATCWaypoint id="XILAN"> <ATCWaypointType>Intersection</ATCWaypointType> <WorldPosition>N59° 39' 33.50",E19° 4' 33.80",+019900.00</WorldPosition> <ATCAirway>L77</ATCAirway> <ICAO> <ICAORegion>ES</ICAORegion> <ICAOIdent>XILAN</ICAOIdent> </ICAO> </ATCWaypoint> <ATCWaypoint id="SA570"> <ATCWaypointType>Intersection</ATCWaypointType> <WorldPosition>N59° 36' 16.00",E18° 41' 42.30",+013700.00</WorldPosition> <ArrivalFP>XILA5T</ArrivalFP> <RunwayNumberFP>26</RunwayNumberFP> <ICAO> <ICAORegion>ES</ICAORegion> <ICAOIdent>SA570</ICAOIdent> </ICAO> </ATCWaypoint> <ATCWaypoint id="TEB"> <ATCWaypointType>VOR</ATCWaypointType> <WorldPosition>N59° 31' 54.10",E18° 12' 11.90",+005600.00</WorldPosition> <ArrivalFP>XILA5T</ArrivalFP> <RunwayNumberFP>26</RunwayNumberFP> <ICAO> <ICAORegion>ES</ICAORegion> <ICAOIdent>TEB</ICAOIdent> </ICAO> </ATCWaypoint> <ATCWaypoint id="ESSA"> <ATCWaypointType>Airport</ATCWaypointType> <WorldPosition>N59° 39' 7.00",E17° 55' 7.00",+000138.00</WorldPosition> <RunwayNumberFP>26</RunwayNumberFP> <ICAO> <ICAOIdent>ESSA</ICAOIdent> </ICAO> </ATCWaypoint> </FlightPlan.FlightPlan> </SimBase.Document>

Ok, thanks for clarification. EDDM airport may be a bit unusual because they use transitions connecting directly to the last enroute waypoint, without a STAR. I was actually pleasantly surprised that Pilot2ATC recognised that and selected correct terminal procedure combination.

Hello, I'm fairly new to the program so I'm not sure if that's a bug or program limitation, but when flying EDDM NAP26 approach transition in MSFS, I did not receive vectors to ILS after DM459. I continued as instructed by the chart for a while, but eventually turned back after 10 or 15 nm and the ATC communication resumed automatically when I got near the IAF. Here are the logs: https://easyupload.io/yupo5b

Fixing it should be possible with the free version available on avsim too: https://stevesfsxanalysis.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/ftx-global-lights/

And if you want something that is not a Boeing, there's also SimCheck Airbus A-300 sold by Aerosoft.

I have a PFC Saab Yoke, the same model that was reviewed by Word Not Allowed on his blog some time ago. It's really a night&day difference compared to my previous Saitek yoke. Smooth, precise and has a great feel. The Saab model has plenty of buttons, although not in a HAT layout. I bought the cheaper version without hall sensors and don't regret it. After one year it still works like new, it has two big, industry grade potentiometers, not the tiny, cheapest pots installed by Saitek or Thrustmaster. Also, Xavi's support at Simtechdesign where I bought the yoke was exceptional. No idea about GoFlight, when I was buying my yoke there were no reviews of it.

Thanks for the heads up. Didn't know the developer was still active after all those years (I remember the addon from the FS9). Highly recommended.

Nope, both 400 and 430 have the same screen and dimensions in reality, it's just the tuning function that is missing in the 400: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/digital/in-the-air/discontinued/gps-400/prod111.html https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/discontinued/gns-430w/prod301.html

C172 and Cherokke have completely different stacks, not a single gauge is identical. Some may be similar, because all in all, they are manufactured by the same company. C172R has the Silver Crown stack that was installed in the factory, the Cherokee has the old generation units with gas discharge displays, plus completely different autopilot and auxiliary avionics. http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=35579 vs http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=115&t=40159 Anything older than that, and we're talking about analog instruments, that would take a lot of space and make Cherokee a much worse IFR platform. Besides, that's the equipment that was installed in a real airplane which was the main source of interior reference. Actually, the autopilot has been completely rewritten so you could say it's a different unit now B) It now simulates all three servos (aileron, elevator, elevator trim), so you would be able to see how it really flies the plane, no cheating like the default FSX autopilot does. It also behaves like a real rate based autopilot, as opposed to the attitude based autopilots found in most other airplanes in FSX except Cherokee. A rate based autopilot uses the signal from the turn indicator and VSI, not from the attitude indicator, which makes it behave differently in some situations. During turns it maintains constant turn rate, not constant bank, and if you apply rudder when flying leveled, it will bank the aircraft to maintain zero turn rate, instead of turning the plane to maintain wings leveled. We've also added optional HSI with simulated both Slave and Free modes. Installing HSI also changes the way how the autopilot operates. There are more 3rd party GPS options available. Those GTN units from Flight1 work very nice and really transform it into glass cockpit. Oh, and the clock has a fully adjustable backlight now. There are many improvements like that, it's not a copy&paste from the C172, otherwise it would be ready half a year ago ^_^

Think I've got too much free time here.

There has been much debate on this subject when the Accusim C172 was released. Scott tested the real C172R Skyhawk extensively and concluded that the aircraft has sensitive controls and it takes off almost without input from the pilot. He even made a comparison video about it: Nevertheless, many people in flightsim world are used to less sensitive controls and our joysticks/yokes usually lack the force feedback and precision of the real controls. So we have added a slider on the Shift-3 panel with which you can adjust the elevator sensitivity of the C172 in FSX to your liking. You should try this out with the original air file.

Interesting, thanks for info. It's always nice to see new, exotic developments for Flight Simulator, especially such good quality.

I think the newest and most feature rich implementation of G1000 from Flight1 is in their King Air, not the Mustang, which is a bit older addon. So if you don't care about plane type, you should consider this one rather than C510. Can't compare it to the Mindstar G1000 though.

I just wish they did an update with new models (787, 748) and up to date liveries.

And which one can we expect first?

It has already been said in this topic, that Level-D does not simulate RR engines, it's just visual model difference. Power/fuel consumption is still GE specific. Not sure if winglets models have different FM.

That pretty much sums up what QW 146/RJ offers. There are two modes of operation, one with realistic FMC(s), autopilot (LNAV, VNAV), systems and normal procedures simulated. The other one seems to be more like default aircraft, but never tried it so can't comment on that. For those who are concerned about QualityWings quality, you can download the 300 pages manual for Avro RJ to check if it's hardore enough for you: http://qwsim.com/index.php/downloads?c=docs&m=757

Probably because people can tell a difference between -200 and -300 ^_^

Thanks, somehow missed that one. That's what I like, lots of configuration options. ^_^